(1988)1988July 16 [STYLIANIDES, J.] INTHE MATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION GENERAL CONSTRUCTIONS CO. LTD., Applicants, v. REVIEW LICENSINGAUTHORITY, Respondents. (CaseNo. 517/86). Motor Transport—The Motor Transport Regulations Law (Law 9/82), as amended by Law 84/84—Carrier Β licences—Sections 16
(1)and 5
(4)— The power to modify condition under s.5
(4)—Course to be followed— Respondents labouring under impression that they hadnopower to modify the conditions—Amaterial misconception of law. c Reasoning of an administrative act—Contradicted by material in the file— Groundfor annulment. Theapplicantsareowners of acarrier "B" licensed vehicle. They sought modification of theconditionin theexisting licence,whereby thevehicle in question could nottransportbuilding materials. JQ Theapplication was turneddown. A hierarchical recoursetothePermits Review Authority metwith thesame fate. Hence this recourse. The subjudice decision was based on the follow ing reasons, i.e. (a)Originally thecarrier Β licence was granted on condition thatno building material would betransported, 15 (b)Theneedsof theapplicantscanbe served by othercarrierΒ licensed vehicles. 1468 i 3 C.L.R. 5 10 Gen."Constructions v. Licensing Authority Held,annulling thesubjudice decision:
(1)Undersection 5
(4)the Li censing Authority may,for reasonablecause,atany time,amendthecondi tions imposed ina licence.Therespondents,eitherdisregarded theirpower under section 5
(4)toamendonreasonable cause theconditionsimposedin a licence,or they laboured under a misconception that they had nosuch • ' * power. Indealing with this hierarchicalrecourse they should have inquired whether therewas reasonablecause for themodifications of the conditions of the licence. In doing so, they should have examined whether the facts ,t and circumstances, for which the existing condition was imposed, have changed and whether thechange is such thatjustifies themodification ap plied for. ... - ι < »r Furthermore,'they should inquire if themodification is required for the purposes of thecommercialorother-business of theapplicant.(Seesection 16
(1)of said law). ' 15 20
(2)Thematerial inthefiledoes notbear outthattheneedsof theappli cants- owners canbesatisfied by othercarriers 'B'belonging tothem.The subjudice decision is contradictedby therelevant records.An Administra tive Courthas toannul thesubjudice administrative actordecision, if the reasoning stated therein is shown to be erroneous,through being contradietedby therelevant administrative records. . Subjudice decision annulled. . No orderas tocosts. Casereferredto: • ~ Papaefstathiou v.PermitsReviewAuthority
(1988)3C.L'.R. 1102; 25 lacqvides v.TheRepublic
(1966)3 C.L.R.212; ' " . -.. ' Lardis v. TheRepublic
(1967)3C.L.R.64; •' Georghiowv. TheRepublic
(1976)3 C.L.R. 74. Recourse. „ , • . Recourse against thedecision of the respondents dismissing applicants' hierarchical recourse againstthe decision of the Li censing Authority refusing to amend carrier 'B' licence of vehicle under Reg. No. HJ. 528 so.as to allow it to be used for transpor tation of building materials. • < *" , ' •· 1469 General Construction v.Licensing Authority
(1988)N.Papaefstathiou, fortheapplicants. M.Tsiappa (Mrs.), for therespondents. Cur. adv. vult. STYLIANIDES J. read the following judgment. Theapplicantsbymeansof thisrecourseseekdeclarationoftheCourtthat 5 thedecisionoftheRespondentAuthority,dated 17thMay,1986, wherebyRespondentdismissed applicants'hierarchicalrecourse, lodgedagainstadecisionoftheLicensingAuthority,refusing to amend carrier 'B'licence of vehicle under Registration No.HJ 528,astoallow ittobeusedfortransportation ofbuildingmate- 10 rial, isnullandvoidandofnoeffect whatsoever. Theapplicantsareabuildingandroadworkscontractors.They ownanumberof goodsvehiclesincludingvehicleunderRegistration No.HJ528.Carrier'B'licencewasissued for thismotor goods vehicle to transport ready crushed stones to applicants' 15 sitesofbuildingconstructionworks. This licence was,on 15th July, 1980 amended, so as to be used for thetransportation of machinery andaccessoriesthereof oftheapplicantstotheirvariousbuildingsites,butthetransportationofbuildingmaterialswasprohibited. Byapplicationdated28thSeptember, 1983,theapplicantsrequestedtheLicensingAuthorityforamendmentoftheconditions of thelicence,by lifting therestriction for thetransportation of buildingmaterialsandthusenabletheapplicantstousesamefor boththetransportationofmachinery aswellasofbuildingmateri- 25 alstotheirsitesthroughoutCyprus. TheLicensingAuthorityrejected thisapplication. Applicants thereuponfiled ahierarchicalrecoursewiththeRespondents. The Respondents - Review Licensing Authority - on 17th May, 1986tookthesubjudicedecision,whichreadsasfollows:- 30 1470 20 3 C.L.R. 5 10 Gen.Constructions v. Licensing Authority StylianidesJ. "Η Αναθεωρητική Αρχή Αδειών έχοντας υπόψη την ισχύουσανομοθεσία καιόλοιταπραγματικάπεριστατικά '* τηςυπόθεσηςπουέχουντεθεί ενώπιοντηςκαιαφού μελέ τησεόλατάσχετικάστοιχείατωνσχετικών φακέλλωνκαι 1 όλα'όσα έχουν λεχθεί από μέρους των προσφευγόντων, αποφασίζει ν' απορρίψει την προσφυγή γιατί αρχικάη ' άδεια Μεταφορέα 'Β' για το όχημα με αρ. εγγραφήςHJ 528 χορηγήθηκεμετηνπροϋπόθεσηπωςτοενλόγωόχημα θα χρησιμοποιείται αποκλειστικάκαι μόνο γιατημεταφοράτων μηχανημάτωντηςκαιυπότονόροότιτούτοδεν θαχρησιμοποιείταιγιατην.μεταφορά υλικώνοικοδομής. Η Εταιρεία είναι η ιδιοκτήτρια άλλων Μεταφορέων 'Β' πού μπορούνναικανοποιήσουντιςανάγκες τηςγια έκτα κτες μεταφορέςαπότις αποθήκες της Εταιρείαςσε εργο τάξιαήαπότο έναεργοτάξιοστοάλλο." J 2 ^ '("The ReviewLicensing Authority taking intoconsideration thelegislation in force and all thefacts and circumstances of thecase which have been placed before itand having consid' 'ered all therelevant material inthefiles andwhatever hasbeen saidonbehalf of theapplicants decides todismisstrierecourse because originally thecarrier 'B' licence in respect of vehicle HJ528 hadbeenissuedonconditionthatitwill beused exclu sively only for thetransportation of themachinery of the ap pellants andoncondition thatit will notbe used for the trans portation of building materials. Thecompany is theowner of other carrier 'B*licences whichcan satisfy its needs for ex traordinary transportations from the warehouses of the Com' pany tothesitesorfrom onesiteto another»).* • • * 3p Theapplicants being aggrievedfiled thisrecourse underArticle 146 of theConstitution for theannulmentof thesubjudice deci sion. Learned counsel for theapplicants submitted thatthe subju dicedecision is contrary tolaw; itwas taken underamisconcep tionof law andfact; anditlacksdue reasoning. 1471 Stylianides J. Gen. Constructions v. Licensing Authority
(1988)A hierarchical recourse is notintendedtoreview the correct ness of the hierarchically subordinate organ's decision by refer ence to the soundness of the reasoning propounded in support thereof but,toestablish asecondtier inthedecision - takingpro cess, designed toeliminatemistakes aswellas abuse of authority 5 by subordinates. Both organs inthehierarchy arecharged with thesameduty-topromotetheobjects of thelaw by theapplica tionof itsprovision inparticularcases.Generally, it iscompetent for thebody exercising powers inahierarchical recourse,to re viewthelegalityof thedecision takeninthefirst instance- (Tsat· ,Q sos -Administration andtheLaw,
(1979), p.63; Stassinopoulos -Law of Administrative Acts,
(1951),p. 177etsequence; KaterinaPapaefstathiou andReviewLicensing Authority, Ministry of Communications and Works,
(1988)3C.L.R. 1102). Thepowerof theReviewLicensing Authority is setoutinsection4A -
(4)asfollows:- ,r "
(4)Ηαναθεωρητικήαρχήαδειώνδύναται ναεκδώση μίαντωνακολούθωναποφάσεων: (α)ναεπικύρωσητηνπροσβληθείσαναπόφασιν. (β)ναακύρωσητηνπροσβληθείσαναπόφασιν. 20 (γ) νατροποποίησητηνπροσβληθείσαναπόφασιν. (δ) να προβήη ιδία εις έκδοσιν νέας αποφάσεως εις αντικατάστασιντης προσβληθείσης. (ε)ναπαραπέμψητην υπόθεσινεις τηναρχήν αδειών, διατάσσουσαταύτην ναπροβήεις ωρισμένηνενέρ- 25 γειαν." ("TheReviewLicensing Authority mayissueanyof thefol lowingdecisions: 1 (a) toconfirm thechallengeddecision: 1472 3 C.L.R. Gen. Constructions v. Licensing Authority Stylianides J. (b)toannul thechallenged decision; (c)tomodify thechallenged decision; 1 ' (d)toissueanewdecision in substitution ofthechallenged ' one; 5 (e)tosend thecaseback totheLicensing Authority orderingthelattertodocertain act.") Thedecision of the ReviewLicensing Authority isanadministrative act and is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. ™ 15 20 Carrier 'B'licences are issued by the Licensing Authority in exercise of its'power under section 16.1of the Motor Transport Regulation Laws,'1982 and 1984 (Laws Nos. 9/82 and 84/84). Under section 16.1of thesaid Law carrier 'B'licences areissued bytheLicensing Authority for motorvehicles belonging tocortimercial and other enterprises to serve their purposes under such conditions astheAuthority may deem appropriate toimpose underthecircumstances. Subsection
(3)providesthattheLicensing Authority in theexerciseofitsdiscretionary powerfor the issue of licences for 'B' carriersduly takesintoconsideration theextentand natureof the businesscarried outortobecarriedout bythe applicant. Under section 5
(4)theLicensing Authority may, for reasonablecause,atanytime,amend theconditionsimposed inalicence. " Therespondentshadbefore themareportof the DistrictTransportController (seeBlue 35ofExhibit2),inwhich,interalia, we readthefollowing:"2. The General Constructions Co. Ltd. , have, also, another five heavy -weight carrier 'B'licences in respect of vehicles LX 683,LX 895, LX 896, LQ 500 and CV 225, as 1473 Stylianides J. Gen. Constructions v. Licensing Authority
(1988)well as two light typeones under five tonsinrespect of vehicles KJ 46 and JK 647. Inthelicencesof thefirstthreevehiclesthereisarestriction that they will work at Xyliatou dam. The dam has been completed and noware usedat theirquarryinLimassolexclusively within theirprivate space. There is, also, arestriction in the licence of LQ 500 that it shallbeusedfor thetransportation ofsmallquantitiesofbuilding materials, from one site toanother, whereas for motorvehicleCV225thereisnorestriction atall.." In this report it isrecorded that theresponsible official of the applicants told this Controller that themodification of the licence was necessary, due to the way and circumstances under which the business of the plaintiffs wascarried out, for example when they transported machinery from Nicosia to Paphos vehicles should notreturn completely unloaded, buttheyoughttoload the vehicle with stones or sand,or shingle,orother material. 5 10 15 The subjudicedecision isbased ontwogrounds:(a) The original licence was issued for the transportation of machinery on condition that it should not be used for transportation of buildingmaterials;and 20 (b) the applicants' company is the owner of other carriers'B', which sufficiently servetheneedsof thecompany. The Respondents, either, disregarded their power under section 5
(4)toamendonreasonablecausetheconditionsimposedin 25 a licence,orthey laboured underamisconception thattheyhad no suchpower.The fact that theoriginal licencecontained thecondition thatitshould notbeusedfor transportation ofbuildingmaterials, was no impediment for the modification of the licence by thedeletion of thesaid term. 30 1474 3C.LR. 5 Gen. Constructionsv.LicensingAuthority SylianidesJ. Indealing with this hierarchicalrecourse they should have in quired whethertherewas reasonable cause for themodification of theconditionsof thelicences Indoing so,they should have exam inedwhether thefacts andcircumstances, for which the existing conditionwasimposed, have changed andwhether thechange is suchthatjustifies themodification applied for. Furthermore, they should inquire if the modification is re quired for thepurposes of thecommercialorotherbusiness of an applicant. .10 The Respondents laboured undera misconception thatoncea condition was imposed atthetimeof theissuingof alicence,this could not and/or should not be changed, or removed. This is . clearly contrary tolaw. TheRespondents were labouring undera misconception of law. ιc Thematerial inthefiledoes notbear outthattheneeds of the applicants -owners can be satisfied by othercarriers 'B' belong ing tothem.Thesubjudice decision is contradictedby the relevant records.,An Administrative Court'hastoannulthe subjudice ad ministrative actordecision because thereasoning statedtherein is shown tobe erroneus,through being contradictedby the relevant administrative records. (See lacovos L. Iacovides and The Re public of Cyprus,throughthePublicServiceCommission
(1966)3 C.L.R. 212;Andreas Lardis v.Republic (Public ServiceCom mission)
(1967)3 C.L.R. 64; Odysseas Georghiou v. Republic (Public Service Commission)
(1976)3 C.L.R. 74.) _n In view of the foregoing, the sub judice decision is declared null andvoid andof no effect. Let therebe noorderas tocosts. 1 30 'Subjudice decisionannulled. Noorderas tocosts 1475